The House needs to slow down on health care

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer (L) looks on as US Secretary of Health and Human Service Tom Price (R) points to a print-out of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a copy of the new plan introduced to repeal and replace the ACA during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, DC on March 7, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / JIM WATSONJIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Photo: JIM WATSON, AFP/Getty Images

On Monday, House Republicans released their long-anticipated plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a conservative vision of a national health care system. So far, few are pleased with the results.

The House GOP faced a daunting task. It wanted to keep the Affordable Care Act’s most popular provisions — including a ban on denials of insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26.

But it also wanted to either get rid of or phase out the coverage mandates, Medicaid subsidies and tax penalties that balanced the entire creaky edifice.

The House proposal attempts to replace mandates with tax credits and to end the federal Medicaid expansion after 2020. While the Congressional Budget Office has yet to score the plan, health policy experts say it will reduce Medicaid benefits and drive up costs for the average ACA user.

More Editorials

The one group that’s a sure winner under the House plan? Insurance companies.

They’ll be allowed to impose a surcharge, up to 30 percent, for those who have a gap in their insurance coverage. (Effectively, they’ll receive the cash penalty instead of the Internal Revenue Service.) Health care insurance executives will also receive a new tax break on salaries they receive over $500,000.

It’s impossible to claim this bill is a fine substitute for the Affordable Care Act’s shortcomings. Even some Republicans in the House and Senate are already criticizing it.

That may explain why House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is trying to rush a vote on it. It’s scheduled to be voted on by the two relevant House committees, Energy and Ways and Means, as early as Wednesday — before the Congressional Budget Office has had a chance to tell the public what the true cost of it may be.